What is a flakmoppe?

The Internet is a strange and wonderful place. This was additionally confirmed today when I was checking my stats and discovered that someone in China had visited my blog. This is not so uncommon. The unusual thing was the search-term used. The visitor had searched google with the phrase

what is a flakmoppe

This is the internet being used at its best for cross-cultural experiences. It is a brilliant question which touches the strange heartland of Swedish mystique and culture. The flakmoppe is a moped with a difference.

Most commonly used on small islands (but also in the countryside), this moped has been adapted to be able to transport material. The moped has three wheels (two in the front) and a small platform upon which the rider can transport small amounts of goods (or other people). The advantage of this is that on many small Swedish islands no cars could be transported there and no larger roads where built. So the islanders had to rely on something smaller for their daily lighter transport needs.

The flakmoppe used to be reasonably widespread but now remains an important mode of transportation on the islands of Sweden and in the hearts of the nostalgic and flakmoppe enthusiasts.

Voodoo Technology

Since I am not a tecchie the actual innermost workings of software remains a mystery in the same way as good magic or voodoo is a mystery. So upgrading my wordpress blog is anxious experience every time.

So now I have moved to version 2.0.4 and the voodoo seems to have worked. The angry gods of software were appeased by the fear in my eyes, the fresh java in my cup and my slow reading of the howto fileâ?¦

There is a brilliant Calvin and Hobbes strip were Calvin asks his father how the lightbulb works and his father answers â??Magicâ??. Most people take their appliances for granted but would not consider them magic. I find this strange since we blindly trust (no other option really) our appliances and truly think we understand how technology works when we are able to make it function.

There is a world of difference between being able to turn on the light and being able to understand how it worksâ?¦and lets not get started with the ability to record something on a video recorderâ?¦

Book Mooch

I am particularly fond of ideas where old ideas can be supported by new technology. If you add to this ideas which include books then I am sold. An example of this is Book Crossings whose idea was to share books with strangers by leaving them in public spaces a clear notice of the Book Crossing idea.

The Book Mooch is another of these great ideas.

Itâ??s a community for exchanging used books. It lets you give away books you no longer need in exchange for books you really want. It is many other features but in its simplest forms the idea is:

Give & receive: Every time you give someone a book, you earn a point and can get any book you want from anyone else at BookMooch. Once you’ve read a book, you can keep it forever or put it back into BookMooch for someone else, as you wish.

(via Boing Boing)

Apple Sweatshops Spoof

Have you seen the Get-a-mac adverts? Basically a minimalistic, humorous set of adverts (watch them here) begging for someone to do a good spoof â?? and of course someone has!

The spoof is on the working conditions in Chinese factories manufacturing (among other things) Apple products. These factories are infamous for their low wage, long hours and brutality. More info in this article from MacForum.

See this spoof and others over at MacSpoofs â??Get-a-macâ?? category.

Fingerprinting Children

Mandatory fingerprinting for all over children over 12. Does this sound like an idea straight out of a dystopian nightmare? Wrong! This comes from a report (EU doc no: 9403/1/06) from the EU Council Presidency meeting of 26 June 2006. And it gets worse individual states will be fingerprinting infants from day one â?? as soon as this becomes technically possible.

Why the age of six? Is it to protect the integrity of the youngest? No such luck. As the report states: â??Scientific tests have confirmed that the papillary ridges on the fingers are not sufficiently developed to allow biometric capture and analysis until the age of six.â??

This issue was previously discussed in the meeting of the Visa Working Party (EU doc no: 10540/06). This latter discussion shows an unanimous will to adopt compulsory fingerprinting and no real integrity objections to states to adopt fingerprinting at an earlier age.

In May the BBC reported that children under the age of five were being fingerprinted to attempt to ensure that fraudulent benefit claims made by asylum seekers were unsuccessful.

(via Statewatch)

Evolution of a Social Contract (the GPLv3 process)

OK so the GPL is a copyright license. But in part it has also evolved into something larger than life. It has become one of those rare things among legal documents – an icon.

Naturally it is not alone in this position. But what is interesting is that other icons tend to be “larger”. The US constitution is an icon, the declaration of rights is an icon. Very few contracts and licenses can be called iconic since few or none ever make it outside their small community. So what happens when the process of technological development forces the “evolution” of a license?

Unlike nature we cannot expect a natural selection. The development must be moved by an outside force. It can be done either dictatorially or democratically. In one way dictatorially is easier – you don’t have to ask all the people what they think. But using this process does not work with software licenses since the dissatisfaction of users will only lead to the demise of the license. Democracy also has its advantages. It allows for participation and the ability of smart people to bring forward comments and ideas that the dictator may not have recognised. The GPL has chosen a democratic process.
The formal system can best be seen in the overview of the process, which begins with the initial release and presentation of the draft of the GPLv3 with additional documentation such as the overview of the review system and the explanatory documents. In addition to the more formal structure the information needs to be communicated out to the users and to ensure an equality of information transfers was established. The latter was accomplished primarily through the use of the Internet as a distribution method of all texts and additional audio and video material.

The essence of the drafting process here described is to make it possible for the Free Software Foundation to decide the contents of the GPL through the fullest possible discussion with the most diverse possible community of drafters and users. Ideally, we would identify every issue affecting every user of the license and resolve these issues with a full consideration of their risks and benefits. In order to accomplish such a large task, the discussion process involves individual community members and Discussion Committees that represent different types of users and distributors.

The process was formally commenced with the release of the first Discussion Draft of version 3 of the GPL (including additional explanatory material) at the first International Public Conference in January 2006, at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The two day event at MIT was recorded and the audio video material was also made available online. The second draft has recently been released.

To ensure that comments on the GPL are collected and dealt with Discussion Committees have been formed. The members of the committees were chosen to represent diverse users groups such as â??â?¦large and small enterprises, both public and private; vendors, commercial and noncommercial redistributors; development projects that use the GPL as a license for their programs; development projects that use other free software licenses, but are invested in the contents of the GPL; and unaffiliated individual developers and people who use softwareâ??. The role of these committees is to organise and analyse the received comments and propose solutions.

The FSF invited the initial members of the Discussion Committees but granted the committees the power to invite further members and to autonomously organise their work process. The committees work to encourage commentary on the license from the sectors they represent. Once the comments have been collected, organised and analysed the committee is responsible for presenting its results of the deliberations to the FSF.

Aside from this organisational method of soliciting and analysing comments from a wider public the FSF have created an online method of allowing anyone to comment directly on the license draft. This is done by creating a software based commenting system, which works in this way. The draft text of the GPLv3 is online and users can mark a section of text, which they wish to comment, and then type â??câ??. Doing this opens a comment box, which allows the user to add a comment.

Once a user has commented on a section of text that section becomes highlighted. If no-one has commented on the text the background colour is white. After a comment the background is light yellow. The colour of the background becomes progressively darker for each comment added. This colour system allows users to see at a glance which sections of the draft are the most commented.

By holding the cursor over highlighted text the user is informed how many comments have been made on that section. By clicking on highlighted text the comments that have been made appear and can be read. The latter feature has the added benefit of reducing the amount of duplicated comments since the commentator can see the commentary of others.
So what are you waiting for? Participate in the democracy!

No Laptops for India

The much publicised MIT project about the100$ laptop received an interesting setback last week. India has decided not to place orders. In an article in the Register (26th July 2006) The Indian Ministry of Education called the whole project â??pedagogically suspectâ??. Nigeria, on the other hand, has ordered and paid for 1 million of the MIT laptops.

This is an interesting challenge to the idea that technology will fix problems. The fundamental philosophy behind the MIT project was that by providing a cheap, robust machine which communicates and shares easily with others there will be gains in learning, literacy and computer skills.

Not everyone agrees with this view. Indian Education Secretary Sudeep Banerjee said:

â??We cannot visualise a situation for decades when we can go beyond the pilot stage. We need classrooms and teachers more urgently than fancy tools.â??

Because the focus is on the tools and its costs the focus of what the problem is and how it should be addressed has been on the technology. With questions of what platform should be used and whether 100$ per laptop is achievable or even if it is desirable.

In the rush to discuss the number of USB ports the questions which have been forgotten is â?? how many teachers can be hired for 100$? Or in the worst case scenario â?? how many teachers will poor countries not be able to hire because they have bought cheap laptops?

(via Question Technology)

GPLv3 Second draft

Never turn your back on progress. I was offline for a couple of days and the second discussion draft was published along with explanatory texts and the first discussion drafts of the GNU Lesser General Public License. This was a couple of days ago – but still well worth reporting here.

The second discussion draft of the GNU General Public License version 3 was released on 2006 July 27, along with the first discussion draft of the GNU Lesser General Public License.

Read all about it!

Web 2.0 Licentiate thesis

Does the term Web 2.0 confuse or annoy you? Is there anything beyond the flashy buzzword? Well I guess the best way to begin to understand Web 2.0 is to experience it (insert your Matrix jokes here!) but if you prefer to be guided by someone else then I can recommend Peter Gigerâ??s (2006) Licentiate Thesis on the topic. The title is â??Participation Literacyâ?? and it is an interesting exploration in the termâ??s growth and meaning.

From the abstract:

The thesis concerns the Web 2.0 concept construction. Web 2.0 is a new mindset on the Internet. The main characteristics include â??Web as a Platformâ??, Collective Intelligence, Folksonomy and interfaces build with lightweight technologiesâ?¦Web 2.0 is not only a technique, but also an ideology â?? an ideology of participation. A Web 2.0 service is completely web based and generally draws on open access. It includes tools for people to interact within areas such as encyclopaedias, bookmarks, photos, books or research articles. All Web 2.0 services are web communities. A web community is a group of individuals, linked together by a network of social relations with some degree of continuity. Community members learn from each other and the knowledge base of the community grows for every interaction. The core values of Web 2.0 are democracy and participation.

Download it here or visit Peter’s research blog.

GPLv3 issues: TiVO-isation

This is the first of a series of discussions on the version 3 of the GPL. This post will report on the oddly named process of TiVO-isation.

At times the GNU/Linux desktop operating system is seen as the flagship of Free Software but it is important to remember that while the flagship is important and symbolic it is not the foundation upon which the impact of Free Software should be measured.

The greatest technological foundation of Free Software is the use of stripped down Linux kernels in embedded applications. One such application is the TiVO recorder. The TiVO is an embedded device made up of several GNU packages. The device is capable of recording several TV channels at the same time.

The definition of Free Software is sometimes reproduced in a simple â??four freedomsâ?? format. If software fulfils these four conditions it is Free. If any of the four freedoms is limited in any way the software is proprietary. For the sake of completeness the four freedoms are listed here:

Freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
Freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
Freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

According to the freedoms it permissible to modify a GPL licensed program without re-distributing it, or running proprietary software on top of the GPL licensed software.

The TiVO has modified GNU/Linux in order to implement DRM within the operation of their video recorder. In compliance with the GPL, they released the source code for these modifications. Users are therefore able to modify the code and the operation of the video recorder. To this extent the TiVO is GPL compliant.

The problem is that TiVO contains a special mechanism that shuts down the machine if the user attempts to install modified software. Therefore the user is allowed to modify the code but is prevented from in reality from using these modifications in the embedded application of the TiVO. This makes freedom 1 into a sham.

The new version of the GPL (version 3) will prevent the compliance with the letter of the freedoms without the compliance to the purpose and spirit of the GPL.